Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[RKMBrown]

They are until the upcoming ruling, then maybe.....

No so much

The two are completely unrelated.

But I look forward to seeing you have your day in court arguing that you have the right to marry your sibling

Repeating is not an argument.

Could it be you're stumped?

Since your reply was unrelated to my post- might as well keep posting it.

The two are completely unrelated.

But I look forward to seeing you have your day in court arguing that you have the right to marry your sibling

I'm starting to think it's his parents that he wants to see married.

They died several years ago.

Interesting folks.

You should have met them. At their eldest, both could raise some hell and likely kick your ass.

Sorry to hear that. I lost my mom 2years ago... It's tough.

 

[Pop23]

The two are completely unrelated.

But I look forward to seeing you have your day in court arguing that you have the right to marry your sibling.

They are until the upcoming ruling, then maybe.....

No so much

The two are completely unrelated.

But I look forward to seeing you have your day in court arguing that you have the right to marry your sibling

Repeating is not an argument.

Could it be you're stumped?

Since your reply was unrelated to my post- might as well keep posting it.

The two are completely unrelated.

But I look forward to seeing you have your day in court arguing that you have the right to marry your sibling

I'm starting to think it's his parents that he wants to see married.

That was low

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.

Gay marriage, or even traditional marriage for that matter, shouldn't even come up as a Presidential issue during a debate. Why would anyone choose the issue of "gay marriage" as their TOP priority for who they want to vote for anyways?

Unless they are afraid the next President will follow suit after Obama, and issue executive decisions that totally leaves Congress out of the loop of any established law that forces change through the power of one man and one branch of government, which is unconstitutional to begin with. There is a reason why the Constitution is set up with checks and balances through very defined separate branches of government, each with very specific roles and defined authority.

ShaklesOfBigGov

Yeah. No other president has ever ever ever signed Executive Orders. Obviously, Obama is operating outside the laws of the United States.

Yes, that's sarcasm. Educate yourself as to what is "constitutional" and what is not.

You might also want to look up how many EOs Obama has signed, compared to other presidents.

Or, alternatively, you could keep saying really stupid stuff like this this post of yours.

I'm sure you would have no problem stating the specific clause under the executive branch portion of the Constitution, where it states the president has the precise authority to set new legislation WITHOUT the need of the Legislative branch. Let's just see you back up your "knowledge" of the Constitution.

I'm sure you know this, but I thought it important to note that leftists don't need to find those words in the constitution to demand that it's in the Constituion.

LOL. For Pete's sake WeeCatcher was just in another thread DEMANDING that 2+2 does not necessarily... =4.

Then went on for two pages explaining to everyone how only those with superior minds could recognize that the natural laws of mathematics were wrong.

LOL! And friend... You can't make that crap UP!

The ideological Left... Is comprised of people suffering mental disorder... Specifically delusion.

 

[RKMBrown]

They are until the upcoming ruling, then maybe.....

No so much

The two are completely unrelated.

But I look forward to seeing you have your day in court arguing that you have the right to marry your sibling

Repeating is not an argument.

Could it be you're stumped?

Since your reply was unrelated to my post- might as well keep posting it.

The two are completely unrelated.

But I look forward to seeing you have your day in court arguing that you have the right to marry your sibling

I'm starting to think it's his parents that he wants to see married.

That was low

What's wrong with your parents being married? Granted they are dead, but I find it odd that you protest your parents being married.

 

[Pop23]

The two are completely unrelated.

But I look forward to seeing you have your day in court arguing that you have the right to marry your sibling

Repeating is not an argument.

Could it be you're stumped?

Since your reply was unrelated to my post- might as well keep posting it.

The two are completely unrelated.

But I look forward to seeing you have your day in court arguing that you have the right to marry your sibling

I'm starting to think it's his parents that he wants to see married.

That was low

What's wrong with your parents being married? Granted they are dead, but I find it odd that you protest your parents being married.

Or "getting" married......

It's OK, I'm over it,

I want you to note that I do not use words like Fag, fudge packer or the hundreds of other words some use to describe gays. I have far to much respect for those I disagree with to stoop to those lows. I have used homo a time or two, but only with hetro in the same line of thinking.

I do not hate gays.

We can disagree, that's fine, that's the world we live in, and some of the posters I have the greatest respect for are those on your side of this issue.

World Watcher is a helluva human being. SeaWytch and I have had epic battles, and i will defend her right to express her feelings. She's one tough woman. Both them an several others (including you) have EARNED my respect.

I will continue to disagree, but I WILL NEVER HATE YOU, THEM OR ANYONE WHO HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION THEN ME, JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT LIFE EXPERIENSES AND OPINIONS THEN I.

Now,

Let's continue the discussion (or war, if you will)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Edit: Reposted this because I added a Link to where WeeCatcher literally argued that the Natural Laws of Mathematics were subjective... and subject to One's Personal Needs... declaring AS A FACT: That 2+2 ... did NOT necessarily equal 4.

Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.

Gay marriage, or even traditional marriage for that matter, shouldn't even come up as a Presidential issue during a debate. Why would anyone choose the issue of "gay marriage" as their TOP priority for who they want to vote for anyways?

Unless they are afraid the next President will follow suit after Obama, and issue executive decisions that totally leaves Congress out of the loop of any established law that forces change through the power of one man and one branch of government, which is unconstitutional to begin with. There is a reason why the Constitution is set up with checks and balances through very defined separate branches of government, each with very specific roles and defined authority.

ShaklesOfBigGov

Yeah. No other president has ever ever ever signed Executive Orders. Obviously, Obama is operating outside the laws of the United States.

Yes, that's sarcasm. Educate yourself as to what is "constitutional" and what is not.

You might also want to look up how many EOs Obama has signed, compared to other presidents.

Or, alternatively, you could keep saying really stupid stuff like this this post of yours.

I'm sure you would have no problem stating the specific clause under the executive branch portion of the Constitution, where it states the president has the precise authority to set new legislation WITHOUT the need of the Legislative branch. Let's just see you back up your "knowledge" of the Constitution.

I'm sure you know this, but I thought it important to note that leftists don't need to find those words in the constitution to demand that it's in the Constituion.

LOL. For Pete's sake (LINK >) WeeCatcher (< LINK) was just in another thread DEMANDING that 2+2 does not necessarily... =4.

Then went on for two pages explaining to everyone how only those with superior minds could recognize that the natural laws of mathematics were wrong.

LOL! And friend... You can't make that crap UP!

The ideological Left... Is comprised of people suffering mental disorder... Specifically delusion.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Hey dickhead faggot-haters, you lost, get over it.

 

[ninja007]

lib logic. Support muslims. Be killed after they help them come to power. You cant make this stuff up.

 

[Seawytch]

Hmmm, no. Ideological cranks say that.

Actually the title of the fucking thing is:

Homosexual behaviour increases male attractiveness to females

Stop lying.

No, that's just an attempt to bilk the suckers of their cash.

Of course it is, that's why I used the word "clientele" rather than "mate" or "partner". Are you going to tell me that lesbian acts are not committed on and off stage at a strip club? Pshaw.

Some queer biologist calls fish behavior "homosexual" and you think we're all just supposed to fall down and believe it without question?

I don't think I much care if fish are gay or not . . . since I'm not a fish. That would make it . . . what's the word? Irrelevant.

There are animals, lots of them, who naturally engage in cannibalism, but I'm pretty sure no one advocates us practicing that as natural behavior ourselves. At least, I hope not.

Sorry bigots, but you don't get to play the "it's not natural" card and then when it is shown to be prevalent in nature, play the "some animals are cannibals" card.

Sorry, dipshit, but you don't get to conflate multiple posters and positions and then attribute the resulting mashup to everyone.

Yes, cuntessa, I can. I can respond to a thread with a comment on topic. Oh, that's what I did.

Furthermore, shitforbrains, the fact that you can't understand the concept of "it's not natural FOR HUMANS" does not in any way make me responsible for trying to formulate a position that complies with your cockeyed, half-assed viewpoint.

Of course it's natural for humans. Humans have been doing it since they crawled out of the primordial sludge. You bigots really are stupid. Mean and stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually the title of the fucking thing is:

Homosexual behaviour increases male attractiveness to females

Stop lying.
Of course it is, that's why I used the word "clientele" rather than "mate" or "partner". Are you going to tell me that lesbian acts are not committed on and off stage at a strip club? Pshaw.

Some queer biologist calls fish behavior "homosexual" and you think we're all just supposed to fall down and believe it without question?

I don't think I much care if fish are gay or not . . . since I'm not a fish. That would make it . . . what's the word? Irrelevant.

There are animals, lots of them, who naturally engage in cannibalism, but I'm pretty sure no one advocates us practicing that as natural behavior ourselves. At least, I hope not.

Sorry bigots, but you don't get to play the "it's not natural" card and then when it is shown to be prevalent in nature, play the "some animals are cannibals" card.

Sorry, dipshit, but you don't get to conflate multiple posters and positions and then attribute the resulting mashup to everyone.

Yes, cuntessa, I can. I can respond to a thread with a comment on topic. Oh, that's what I did.

Furthermore, shitforbrains, the fact that you can't understand the concept of "it's not natural FOR HUMANS" does not in any way make me responsible for trying to formulate a position that complies with your cockeyed, half-assed viewpoint.

Of course it's natural for humans. Humans have been doing it since they crawled out of the primordial sludge. You bigots really are stupid. Mean and stupid.

According to that theory cannibalism is "natural" for humans. I don't see your ilk endorsing that.

 

[Seawytch]

Some queer biologist calls fish behavior "homosexual" and you think we're all just supposed to fall down and believe it without question?

I don't think I much care if fish are gay or not . . . since I'm not a fish. That would make it . . . what's the word? Irrelevant.

There are animals, lots of them, who naturally engage in cannibalism, but I'm pretty sure no one advocates us practicing that as natural behavior ourselves. At least, I hope not.

Sorry bigots, but you don't get to play the "it's not natural" card and then when it is shown to be prevalent in nature, play the "some animals are cannibals" card.

Sorry, dipshit, but you don't get to conflate multiple posters and positions and then attribute the resulting mashup to everyone.

Yes, cuntessa, I can. I can respond to a thread with a comment on topic. Oh, that's what I did.

Furthermore, shitforbrains, the fact that you can't understand the concept of "it's not natural FOR HUMANS" does not in any way make me responsible for trying to formulate a position that complies with your cockeyed, half-assed viewpoint.

Of course it's natural for humans. Humans have been doing it since they crawled out of the primordial sludge. You bigots really are stupid. Mean and stupid.

According to that theory cannibalism is "natural" for humans. I don't see your ilk endorsing that.

You're wrong. I heartily endorse "eating" each other.

Stupid bigots.

 

[RKMBrown]

Repeating is not an argument.

Could it be you're stumped?

Since your reply was unrelated to my post- might as well keep posting it.

The two are completely unrelated.

But I look forward to seeing you have your day in court arguing that you have the right to marry your sibling

I'm starting to think it's his parents that he wants to see married.

That was low

What's wrong with your parents being married? Granted they are dead, but I find it odd that you protest your parents being married.

Or "getting" married......

It's OK, I'm over it,

I want you to note that I do not use words like Fag, fudge packer or the hundreds of other words some use to describe gays. I have far to much respect for those I disagree with to stoop to those lows. I have used homo a time or two, but only with hetro in the same line of thinking.

I do not hate gays.

We can disagree, that's fine, that's the world we live in, and some of the posters I have the greatest respect for are those on your side of this issue.

World Watcher is a helluva human being. SeaWytch and I have had epic battles, and i will defend her right to express her feelings. She's one tough woman. Both them an several others (including you) have EARNED my respect.

I will continue to disagree, but I WILL NEVER HATE YOU, THEM OR ANYONE WHO HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION THEN ME, JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT LIFE EXPERIENSES AND OPINIONS THEN I.

Now,

Let's continue the discussion (or war, if you will)

Ok... my apologies for leaving a sentence up there open for a wide interpretation. I sort of baited you on that one. My bad. I understood that you would "tie" the implication to the subject matter. But I ask you to understand that I to am "tying" the implication of your statements to the subject matter.

We as humans have a tendency to form assumptions based on limited data. For example, when people thought they saw that face on Mars. Sometimes we make links that just are not there.

For example, linking gay marriage to incest. You see a link.. that is just not there.

 

[Pop23]

Since your reply was unrelated to my post- might as well keep posting it.

The two are completely unrelated.

But I look forward to seeing you have your day in court arguing that you have the right to marry your sibling

I'm starting to think it's his parents that he wants to see married.

That was low

What's wrong with your parents being married? Granted they are dead, but I find it odd that you protest your parents being married.

Or "getting" married......

It's OK, I'm over it,

I want you to note that I do not use words like Fag, fudge packer or the hundreds of other words some use to describe gays. I have far to much respect for those I disagree with to stoop to those lows. I have used homo a time or two, but only with hetro in the same line of thinking.

I do not hate gays.

We can disagree, that's fine, that's the world we live in, and some of the posters I have the greatest respect for are those on your side of this issue.

World Watcher is a helluva human being. SeaWytch and I have had epic battles, and i will defend her right to express her feelings. She's one tough woman. Both them an several others (including you) have EARNED my respect.

I will continue to disagree, but I WILL NEVER HATE YOU, THEM OR ANYONE WHO HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION THEN ME, JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT LIFE EXPERIENSES AND OPINIONS THEN I.

Now,

Let's continue the discussion (or war, if you will)

Ok... my apologies for leaving a sentence up there open for a wide interpretation. I sort of baited you on that one. My bad. I understood that you would "tie" the implication to the subject matter. But I ask you to understand that I to am "tying" the implication of your statements to the subject matter.

We as humans have a tendency to form assumptions based on limited data. For example, when people thought they saw that face on Mars. Sometimes we make links that just are not there.

For example, linking gay marriage to incest. You see a link.. that is just not there.

All's good now bro.

I understand your personal involvement in the issue. That can get thing heated. I DON'T HOLD ILL WILL TOWARD YOU OR YOUR FAM!

Now, let's fight.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm starting to think it's his parents that he wants to see married.

That was low

What's wrong with your parents being married? Granted they are dead, but I find it odd that you protest your parents being married.

Or "getting" married......

It's OK, I'm over it,

I want you to note that I do not use words like Fag, fudge packer or the hundreds of other words some use to describe gays. I have far to much respect for those I disagree with to stoop to those lows. I have used homo a time or two, but only with hetro in the same line of thinking.

I do not hate gays.

We can disagree, that's fine, that's the world we live in, and some of the posters I have the greatest respect for are those on your side of this issue.

World Watcher is a helluva human being. SeaWytch and I have had epic battles, and i will defend her right to express her feelings. She's one tough woman. Both them an several others (including you) have EARNED my respect.

I will continue to disagree, but I WILL NEVER HATE YOU, THEM OR ANYONE WHO HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION THEN ME, JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT LIFE EXPERIENSES AND OPINIONS THEN I.

Now,

Let's continue the discussion (or war, if you will)

Ok... my apologies for leaving a sentence up there open for a wide interpretation. I sort of baited you on that one. My bad. I understood that you would "tie" the implication to the subject matter. But I ask you to understand that I to am "tying" the implication of your statements to the subject matter.

We as humans have a tendency to form assumptions based on limited data. For example, when people thought they saw that face on Mars. Sometimes we make links that just are not there.

For example, linking gay marriage to incest. You see a link.. that is just not there.

All's good now bro.

I understand your personal involvement in the issue. That can get thing heated. I DON'T HOLD ILL WILL TOWARD YOU OR YOUR FAM!

Now, let's fight.

Cheers...

But incest is still illegal

 

[Pop23]

That was low

What's wrong with your parents being married? Granted they are dead, but I find it odd that you protest your parents being married.

Or "getting" married......

It's OK, I'm over it,

I want you to note that I do not use words like Fag, fudge packer or the hundreds of other words some use to describe gays. I have far to much respect for those I disagree with to stoop to those lows. I have used homo a time or two, but only with hetro in the same line of thinking.

I do not hate gays.

We can disagree, that's fine, that's the world we live in, and some of the posters I have the greatest respect for are those on your side of this issue.

World Watcher is a helluva human being. SeaWytch and I have had epic battles, and i will defend her right to express her feelings. She's one tough woman. Both them an several others (including you) have EARNED my respect.

I will continue to disagree, but I WILL NEVER HATE YOU, THEM OR ANYONE WHO HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION THEN ME, JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT LIFE EXPERIENSES AND OPINIONS THEN I.

Now,

Let's continue the discussion (or war, if you will)

Ok... my apologies for leaving a sentence up there open for a wide interpretation. I sort of baited you on that one. My bad. I understood that you would "tie" the implication to the subject matter. But I ask you to understand that I to am "tying" the implication of your statements to the subject matter.

We as humans have a tendency to form assumptions based on limited data. For example, when people thought they saw that face on Mars. Sometimes we make links that just are not there.

For example, linking gay marriage to incest. You see a link.. that is just not there.

All's good now bro.

I understand your personal involvement in the issue. That can get thing heated. I DON'T HOLD ILL WILL TOWARD YOU OR YOUR FAM!

Now, let's fight.

Cheers...

But incest is still illegal

I'll getcha for that!

 

[Redfish]

blind people are a minority too. is it discrimination to not allow them to drive cars?

and mixing race into this only defeats your arguments, race and homosexuality are not analogous.

Are you actually saying you want a law that blocks blind people from getting married? WTF is wrong with you?

How is stopping gays from getting married in a loving relationship between two consenting adults, the same as blind drivers heading out onto highways and slaughtering people?

Being bigoted against blacks is the same as being bigoted against gays. The only reason you got away with it in both cases was that they were minority groups that jerks like you could pick on.

I said: is it discrimination to deny blind people the right to drive cars? is your reading comprehension damaged by too much cheap vodka last night?

I am not bigoted against gays, I want gays to have a way to legally commit to each other in such a way that gives them the same rights as married couples. But a gay union is not a marriage any more than a legal union of same sex siblings is a marriage.

So you were not comparing gays to blind people, you were comparing marriage licences to driving licenses? You know the privilege of driving on public roads is not the same as the right to life and marriage right?

You know a civil union is not a marriage right?

So you admit that its all about the word and not about equality, rights, discrimination, or anything else. Its about using govt to force societal change to fit your minority views.

and you call that democracy?????

We don't live in a democracy, thank god, we live in a constitutional republic.

No, civil union is not the same as marriage. What makes you think civil union means marriage? There are thousands of different laws regarding marriage. Civil unions is not the same as marriage, because those thousands of laws regarding marriage do not apply.

The only government force that's been going on around here is majority groups pissing on minorities. Protecting a minority from a bully is not force, it's defense. Your argument is akin to saying a cop stopping a rape is force cause the rapist was stronger than his victim, so the victim deserved it.

the laws defining gay civil unions and man/woman marriage should be exactly the same, convey the same rights, and be recognized as equal in every way.

But thats not what you want is it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Are you actually saying you want a law that blocks blind people from getting married? WTF is wrong with you?

How is stopping gays from getting married in a loving relationship between two consenting adults, the same as blind drivers heading out onto highways and slaughtering people?

Being bigoted against blacks is the same as being bigoted against gays. The only reason you got away with it in both cases was that they were minority groups that jerks like you could pick on.

I said: is it discrimination to deny blind people the right to drive cars? is your reading comprehension damaged by too much cheap vodka last night?

I am not bigoted against gays, I want gays to have a way to legally commit to each other in such a way that gives them the same rights as married couples. But a gay union is not a marriage any more than a legal union of same sex siblings is a marriage.

So you were not comparing gays to blind people, you were comparing marriage licences to driving licenses? You know the privilege of driving on public roads is not the same as the right to life and marriage right?

You know a civil union is not a marriage right?

So you admit that its all about the word and not about equality, rights, discrimination, or anything else. Its about using govt to force societal change to fit your minority views.

and you call that democracy?????

We don't live in a democracy, thank god, we live in a constitutional republic.

No, civil union is not the same as marriage. What makes you think civil union means marriage? There are thousands of different laws regarding marriage. Civil unions is not the same as marriage, because those thousands of laws regarding marriage do not apply.

The only government force that's been going on around here is majority groups pissing on minorities. Protecting a minority from a bully is not force, it's defense. Your argument is akin to saying a cop stopping a rape is force cause the rapist was stronger than his victim, so the victim deserved it.

the laws defining gay civil unions and man/woman marriage should be exactly the same, convey the same rights, and be recognized as equal in every way.

But thats not what you want is it?

Separate but equal isn't. You should have figured this out by now.

What matters more, the word marriage or the principle of equality, pick one.

 

[Redfish]

minority rights were, and are, established by majority vote. No one is harmed if the people of each state decide whether to sanction gay marriage. If you are gay and want to marry someone of the same sex, move to a state that allows it.

Incorrect, discriminating against minorities is against the Constitution. How about if we decide that everyone your age is to be put in a home for the elderly for your own good, and that all of your assets are to be confiscated to pay for it? Why not, after-all your are in the minority? Right?

Why stop with harming gays by not letting them get married? Why not the irish too? Why not put the ban in for interracial marriages again? Hey let's bring back Jim Crow laws, they are only harming blacks and well those blacks are just a small minority that seem to go to jail alot. Let the states decide, right?

blind people are a minority too. is it discrimination to not allow them to drive cars?

and mixing race into this only defeats your arguments, race and homosexuality are not analogous.

Are you actually saying you want a law that blocks blind people from getting married? WTF is wrong with you?

How is stopping gays from getting married in a loving relationship between two consenting adults, the same as blind drivers heading out onto highways and slaughtering people?

Being bigoted against blacks is the same as being bigoted against gays. The only reason you got away with it in both cases was that they were minority groups that jerks like you could pick on.

I said: is it discrimination to deny blind people the right to drive cars? .

Yes- it is legally justifiable discrimination.

Really a particularly idiotic comparison- since marriage is an actual right recognized by the Supreme Court, while driving is of course a privilage- not a right.

That being said- blind people are not denied the right to drive just because they are blind- people who cannot pass the vision test are not allowed to drive- just as people who cannot pass the driving test or the written test.

You still can't come up with an equivelent reason why homosexuals should not be able to marry.

Other than human biology and anatomy.

Nor can you come up with a valid reason why same sex siblings over the age of majority should not be allowed to marry. We have been waiting for that answer for several days.

BTW, incest is an act, not a method of cohabitation.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Incorrect, discriminating against minorities is against the Constitution. How about if we decide that everyone your age is to be put in a home for the elderly for your own good, and that all of your assets are to be confiscated to pay for it? Why not, after-all your are in the minority? Right?

Why stop with harming gays by not letting them get married? Why not the irish too? Why not put the ban in for interracial marriages again? Hey let's bring back Jim Crow laws, they are only harming blacks and well those blacks are just a small minority that seem to go to jail alot. Let the states decide, right?

blind people are a minority too. is it discrimination to not allow them to drive cars?

and mixing race into this only defeats your arguments, race and homosexuality are not analogous.

Are you actually saying you want a law that blocks blind people from getting married? WTF is wrong with you?

How is stopping gays from getting married in a loving relationship between two consenting adults, the same as blind drivers heading out onto highways and slaughtering people?

Being bigoted against blacks is the same as being bigoted against gays. The only reason you got away with it in both cases was that they were minority groups that jerks like you could pick on.

I said: is it discrimination to deny blind people the right to drive cars? .

Yes- it is legally justifiable discrimination.

Really a particularly idiotic comparison- since marriage is an actual right recognized by the Supreme Court, while driving is of course a privilage- not a right.

That being said- blind people are not denied the right to drive just because they are blind- people who cannot pass the vision test are not allowed to drive- just as people who cannot pass the driving test or the written test.

You still can't come up with an equivelent reason why homosexuals should not be able to marry.

Other than human biology and anatomy.

Nor can you come up with a valid reason why same sex siblings over the age of majority should not be allowed to marry. We have been waiting for that answer for several days.

BTW, incest is an act, not a method of cohabitation.

Incest is a human tradition, look it up.

 

[Syriusly]

Incorrect, discriminating against minorities is against the Constitution. How about if we decide that everyone your age is to be put in a home for the elderly for your own good, and that all of your assets are to be confiscated to pay for it? Why not, after-all your are in the minority? Right?

Why stop with harming gays by not letting them get married? Why not the irish too? Why not put the ban in for interracial marriages again? Hey let's bring back Jim Crow laws, they are only harming blacks and well those blacks are just a small minority that seem to go to jail alot. Let the states decide, right?

blind people are a minority too. is it discrimination to not allow them to drive cars?

and mixing race into this only defeats your arguments, race and homosexuality are not analogous.

Are you actually saying you want a law that blocks blind people from getting married? WTF is wrong with you?

How is stopping gays from getting married in a loving relationship between two consenting adults, the same as blind drivers heading out onto highways and slaughtering people?

Being bigoted against blacks is the same as being bigoted against gays. The only reason you got away with it in both cases was that they were minority groups that jerks like you could pick on.

I said: is it discrimination to deny blind people the right to drive cars? .

Yes- it is legally justifiable discrimination.

Really a particularly idiotic comparison- since marriage is an actual right recognized by the Supreme Court, while driving is of course a privilage- not a right.

That being said- blind people are not denied the right to drive just because they are blind- people who cannot pass the vision test are not allowed to drive- just as people who cannot pass the driving test or the written test.

You still can't come up with an equivelent reason why homosexuals should not be able to marry.

Other than human biology and anatomy.
.

So you think human biology and anatomy is a reason to deny marriage to homosexuals?

Really?

That is the best you can come up with?

No wonder your side keeps losing in courts.